Re: Packages vs bundles vs folders etc
Re: Packages vs bundles vs folders etc
- Subject: Re: Packages vs bundles vs folders etc
- From: "Sean McBride" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:08:37 -0400
- Organization: Rogue Research Inc.
On 5/11/09 1:55 PM, Alastair Houghton said:
>> My understanding is that Finder decides that frameworks are user
>> browsable because they're directories, but not packages.
>> Applications are not user browsable because they descend from
>> com.apple.package. The bundle type says something about how the
>> directory's contents are arranged; the package type says something
>> about how it should be presented to the user. You can have either,
>> both, or neither.
>
>I'm not sure whether this is now classed as legacy behaviour, but on
>HFS+ at least, Finder looks at the "bundle bit" to determine whether
>something is treated as a bundle or just an ordinary folder.
Are you sure the Finder consults the bundle bit? I would think that
it's Launch Services doing that.
Also, I don't think the bundle bit is 'legacy'. On the contrary, I
think people should be setting it when appropriate (ex: package type
documents like .xcodeproj). If they don't, then computers that don't
have the application installed will see such documents as folders. ex:
on a machine without Xcode, browse a file server and find
some .xcodeproj documents, they will be shown as folders because Xcode
fails to set the bundle bit.
--
____________________________________________________________
Sean McBride, B. Eng email@hidden
Rogue Research www.rogue-research.com
Mac Software Developer Montréal, Québec, Canada
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden